Dems ponder McCain if their Obama or Clinton lose, poll reveals

A new Gallup poll today has some ominous early warning signs about the ongoing struggle for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. The longer it goes, the deeper the split.

Already, the inconclusive primaries have given Sen. John McCain valuable weeks to organize his national effort, work on uniting conservatives, raise money and, perhaps most importantly, start to tell his own positive personal campaign narrative while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are still finding faults with each other.

And because the policy differences between the two are infinitesimal, the focus falls on superficial squabbles over pastors, sleep deprivation, what surrogate speakers misspoke and should be shot.

The longer the Democratic struggle, the more bitter will be the feelings among the....

losing camp, the reasonable fear goes. Now, the new Gallup poll already indicates many Democrats are so wed to their choice that they’d sooner switch parties than fight for their candidate’s rival.

Twenty-eight percent of Democrats backing Clinton tell the pollsters they'd vote for Republican McCain over fellow Democrat Obama. And 19% of Obama backers say they'd vote for McCain before voting for Clinton. Such numbers, even if slightly overstated this early in a presidential year, could play a significant swing role since McCain has been quite adept over the years at attracting independents and Democrats.

McCain would welcome any of them, though the working class demographics of Clinton's fans suggest the old Reagan Democrats might be more susceptible to the GOP argument. And Tuesday, that late president's widow Nancy did, indeed, endorse McCain.

Of course, that’s what they say now -– in the heat of a Democratic campaign that has only increased in intensity as the two have entered a virtual deadlock that may only be broken by the intervention of the party’s unelected “superdelegates. This is what voters were telling Gallup’s pollsters in telephone samples compiled from March 7 to March 22 –- with responses drawn from a huge sample of 6,657 Democrats, providing a margin of error of +/- 2 percentage points.

Come November, with Democrats motivated to reclaim the White House and Democrats theoretically turning out in the same record numbers as in this year’s primaries, the numbers may tell a different story.

“As would be expected," said Gallup's editor in chief, Frank Newport, "almost all Democratic voters who say they support Obama for their party's nomination also say they would vote for him in a general election match-up against McCain. But only 59% of Democratic voters who support Clinton say they would vote for Obama against McCain, while 28 % say they would vote for the Republican McCain.

“This suggests that some Clinton supporters are so strongly opposed to Obama (or so loyal to Clinton) that they would go so far as to vote for the 'other' party's candidate next November if Obama is the Democratic nominee,’’ Newport notes. “The results follow the same pattern, but not to quite the same extent, when the relationship between Democratic support and a general election match up between Clinton and McCain is examined."

Newport adds: “It is worth noting that in Gallup's historical final preelection polls from 1992 to 2004, 10% or less of Republicans and Democrats typically vote for the other party's presidential candidate.’’

But that's seven months away. Looking back seven months, former Sen. Fred Thompson looked like he was going to give former Mayor Rudy Giuliani a real run for the GOP nomination. Neither got past Florida. And that Arizona senator McNabb or McClain was clearly out of the running.

--Mark Silva and Andrew Malcolm

Mark Silva writes for the Swamp of the Chicago Tribune's Washington Bureau.

Comments

[frededias]

Baloney. People are saying this now because they feel bitter. More Clinton people are saying it than Obama people, because the Clinton people have more reason to be bitter— since Clinton almost certainly can't win.

Either way, though, by November I'd guess that 90% of the people saying that — on either side — will come around. It's just talk in the heat of battle.

Of course it will also depend on some leadership from the losing condenter and I hope she (or he) will be man (or woman) enough to step up to that task.

[C Shaw]

The USA Today/Gallup survey clearly explains why Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is losing. Asked whether the candidates were "honest and trustworthy," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won with 67 percent, with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) right behind him at 63. Hillary scored only 44 percent, the lowest rating for any candidate for any attribute in the poll.

Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here's her scorecard:

Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Confess To

• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.
• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/hillarys_list_of_lies.html

[Jenna]

I am ashamed to say that even I, a lifelong dem (and Clintonista) considered voting for McCain because of my dislike for Obama. However, all I had to do was look at McCain's policies and think about an all Republican supreme court and I snapped out of it. I'll pinch my nose and vote for Obama if he is the nominee. Unfortunately I overcampaigned my husband and he is definitely voting McCain if Hillary loses. I guess I'll have to try to get him to stay home.

[Bill]

I pretty much can't stand her after her scorched-earth campaign against Obama. But as much as I can't stand her, the idea of letting the Republicans destroy this country with another four years is worse. She doesn't deserve to win, but if she won the nomination, I would support her in order to keep this country from falling further into the GOP abyss. That said, I pray Obama wins the nomination.

[Roland]

I wonder how the Rush Limbaugh switch votes figure into these results.

[Marks]

Jenna,

> I'll pinch my nose and vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

I would do the same if Hillary wins, because of Bill! If you can define his role in her White House, go ahead and try.

He's not being elected to be in policy meetings and nor more important than her Vice President or Secretary of State. Does Bill need a new position Hillary will appoint him to? Growing staff to be with him and guaranteed those folks will wrinkle the noses at other established Federal Agencies.

If you want a Co-Presidency, I don't.

If Obama wins the nomination, he'll out debate McCain. If Republicans think they have national security issues locked up, they are smoking something.

The world has poor image of America in recent years and they know of McCain and his views. The war in Iraq will never have international partners.

McCain said moral authority in Iraq, I know of more humanitarian morals in other nations to save people from terrorists. But those locations don't have oil or the natural resources the Energy Cabal craves.

The Iraq war took oil from Saddam, that's all it was about. The 9/11 connection wasn't true.

[garodoud]

I'd say this is pretty simple.
1. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore - democrats always considered him an illegitimate president.
2. Republicans got a bit too smug after a long period in power, and lost big time in the 2006 elections.

If the superdelegates now decide to overrule voters - we will be back to square one - an illegitimate candidate, and a majority party that has gotten a bit too smug a bit too quickly. At that point I rather stick with republicans who have atleast learnt a lesson, and have chosen a legitimate candidate

[jennifer potenciano]

all things considered, ceteris paribus, it's a certainty that the DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE will win in the NOVEMBER 2008 US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

this isn't a soothsayer's looking-glass prophesy; this is scientfic political analysis grounded on unerring logic and the soundest of data.

if you know the american people well enough, then you'll know why this prediction is beyond failing, and this outcome predetermined.

even the clinton-obama feud will not in any meaningful way alter this democrats' victory.

but just to make sure it comes to pass, obama must be so politically astute to realize that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line--or that hillary and he hold the key to this democrats poll victory.

a word to barack and hillary: listen to sun tzu, read his classic treatise on warfare (military or poltical), "the art of war," and learn to heart his dictum on how best to win a battle.

if these two fine american political gladiators can't still fathom the idea, then, if they so deem it proper and practical, let's start picking brains via email.

then we can start uncorking the champagne, or, simply, the asti gancia for me. thank you.

[Jenna]

Marks: A box of rocks can out debate McCain. Have you seen the way McCain snarls and glares during debates? Despite some of the current polls, I think either dem nominee will be ok against McCain.

Then again Gore and Kerry out debated Bush and we all know how that turned out.

[Dolly]

Clinton will eagerly sacrifice the Democratic party, women and the American people to beg, borrow or steal this nomination. Despite her claims, she is a bit of a joke overseas. She and Republicans both know she doesn't have a chance against McCain

[CJ]

I agree that after it all calms down Dems vote for the Democratic nominee--I think the bigger question is money. I regularly donate my time and money to the Obama campaign, but I will never spend a dime or a day the the Clinton campaign.

[9th step]

I will vote McCain if Obama gets nomination. He is simply not qualified.

[Justice]

Just read some of the comments from Obama supporters about Hillary and her supporters... then tell me what your answer would be.

We've been called racist, poor, old, stupid, dumb and uneducated. Makes me want to cut off the kids' college allowances. Especially if I find out they're giving it to Obama!

McCain would be more acceptable, especially with a Democratic majority in Congress and the Senate. They will keep in other in line. And I don't mind those tax breaks either :)